coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Helsinki.
6.  The applicant is an attorney. Some business transactions of her client's spouse were investigated by the police but she herself was not a suspect.
7.  On 7 October 2009 police investigators conducted a search at the applicant's office. During the search some e-mail correspondence were copied from her computer and certain documents were seized.
8.  By letter dated 12 October 2009 the head of the investigation (tutkinnanjohtaja, undersökningsledaren) informed the applicant that the seizure of the data had not been successful due to the fact that the wrong files had been copied, and that the information copied had been destroyed. The applicant allegedly never received a copy of the seized files so it was not possible to verify whether the seizure of the data really had been unsuccessful. The seized documents remained in the police's possession.
9.  The pre-trial investigation has been concluded and the case has been submitted to the public prosecutor for consideration of charges. No court proceedings have been initiated yet.
4.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Lapua.
5.  After a request made by a complainant on 8 January 2002 the police started to investigate the applicant's alleged involvement in aggravated fraud and aggravated embezzlement which had taken place in 2001. The applicant was questioned for the first time by the police on 22 June 2003. The pre-trial investigation was concluded on 27 August 2003 and the case file was submitted to the public prosecutor on 16 April 2004.
6.  On 16 July 2004 the public prosecutor brought charges against the applicant for aggravated fraud and aggravated embezzlement. On the same date the case became pending before the Lahti District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten).
7.  The date of the initial oral hearing in respect of the applicant was set for 9 September 2004 but he could not be heard as all witnesses could not be summoned.
8.  On 29 November 2004 the applicant gave a written statement in the case.
9.  Other hearings were also planned, for example for 7 December 2004, 12 December 2005 and 8 May 2006, but they were all eventually either cancelled or the applicant could not be heard for other reasons.
10.  The hearing of the applicant's case was dependent on the proceedings against M.T., who was the co-defendant in both of the two counts of indictment concerning the applicant. The domestic authorities tried to summon the applicant's co-defendants including M.T. and the relevant witnesses on various occasions but these efforts remained unsuccessful. An order for M.T.'s apprehension was issued but annulled on 7 March 2006.
11.  T.L., a witness whose hearing was considered indispensable with regard to all counts of indictment against the applicant, was present at the hearings of 23 August 2004 and 7 December 2004 as far as the counts of indictment against him were concerned but he could not be reached for hearing as a witness in the applicant's case. While waiting for the clarification of T.L.'s whereabouts, the District Court decided to stay proceedings from 8 May 2005 to 16 June 2009. As T.L. could not be reached for trial in Finland, a European Arrest Warrant was issued for his apprehension on 11 November 2007. He was surrendered to Finland on an unspecified date.
12.  On an unspecified date the District Court decided to sever the applicant's case from that of his co-defendants.
13.  On 27 May 2009 the District Court issued a summons to be served to the applicant who was to appear for an oral hearing on 16 June 2009. The hearing was cancelled as the applicant could not be summoned at his place of residence.
14.  From 31 July 2009 onwards the applicant was serving a prison sentence. While in prison, the applicant was summoned to the oral hearing held on 27 October 2009.
15.  On 3 November 2009 the District Court dismissed all charges against the applicant. As the judgment was not appealed against, it became final.
4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Sevastopol.
5.  On 25 March 1998 the applicant was dismissed from her position of Head of Department at the State-owned bank, O. (“the bank”).
6.  On 21 April 1998 she lodged a claim against the bank seeking the reinstatement and compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
7.  On 14 December 1998 Gagarinsky District Court of Sevastopol (“the District Court”) fined the bank following its three consecutive failures to appear before the court.
8.  On 13 January 1999 the District Court partly allowed the applicant’s claim.
9.  On 13 April 1999 the Sevastopol City Court (“the Court of Appeal”, since June 2001, the Sevastopol Court of Appeal) quashed that judgment and sent the case back to the District Court which, on 17 February 2000 dismissed the applicant’s claim. This judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 21 March 2000.
10.  On 20 November 2002 the Supreme Court, dealing with the applicant’s appeal in cassation lodged under the Code of Civil Procedure (as amended by the Law of 21 June 2001), quashed the lower court’s decisions and remitted the case to the District Court which, in a judgment of 24 May 2004 partly granted the applicant’s claim awarding her UAH 114,837 (EUR 17,226)[1] and UAH 50,000 (EUR 7,500) in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage respectively.
11.  On 6 August 2004, the Court of Appeal amended that judgment reducing the compensation for non-pecuniary damage to UAH 5,000 (EUR 750). This ruling was executed in February 2005.
12.  On 9 November 2005 the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions in respect of the non-pecuniary damages upholding the remainder of their decisions.
13.  On 26 June 2006 the District Court, being bound by the Supreme Court’s decision, ordered the applicant to reimburse the defendant UAH 5,000. On 31 August 2006 the Court of Appeal quashed this decision. The parties did not appeal.
14.  In the course of the proceedings, the applicant modified her claims three times, filed one procedural request and five appeals or supplements to appeals, which all met procedural requirements.
15.  According to the Government, of the 37 hearings scheduled during the periods from 22 April 1998 to 21 March 2000 and from 20 November 2002 to 31 August 2006, seven hearing were adjourned due to the defendant’s failure to attend, three were adjourned due to the applicant’s failure to attend, and one hearing was adjourned due to the both parties’ failure to attend.
16.  On 12 January 1999 the Nakhimovsky District Prosecutor of Sevastopol opened a criminal investigation against the applicant on suspicion of abuse of authority. Until 28 December 2001, the investigation was terminated and reopened three times.
17.  On 31 May 2008 the investigation was reopened for the fourth time. This decision was quashed on 15 July 2008 by the Nakhimovsk District Court of Sevastopol. On 31 July 2008 the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s decision. The investigation was pending for about two years and two months overall.
5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Negotino.
6.  On 22 November 2001 the public prosecutor requested an investigating judge of the Negotino Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) to open an investigation against the applicant on the count of forgery of a notice convening a meeting of shareholders of a company, N., in which he was also a shareholder (“the notice”). The applicant was accused of having deceived a considerable number of shareholders into signing the notice by misleading them in the belief that there would be only one item on the agenda, instead of eight, as was actually the case. The investigating judge heard the applicant and 47 witnesses. After the investigation had been completed, on 29 May 2002 the public prosecutor lodged an indictment against the applicant.
7.  The trial court fixed twelve hearings, including that of 6 May 2004, which the applicant did not attend, although he had been summoned properly. During the trial, the court again heard oral evidence from the applicant, who had a court-appointed lawyer, and the 47 witnesses and admitted other documentary evidence. On 31 May 2005, in the presence of the applicant's lawyer only, the trial court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to four months' imprisonment suspended for one year. It did not rely on the statements made by the witnesses before the company's management denying that they had been informed about the remaining items on the agenda. The court rejected the applicant's defence as self-serving and the testimony of 6 defence witnesses as inconsistent and implausible.
8.  On 13 July 2005 the applicant who, at the relevant time, was not represented by counsel, appealed against that decision. He did not request to be notified of the date of the session (седница) of the Court of Appeal.
9.  On 2 November 2005 the Skopje Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the trial court's decision. The court decided in private. The public prosecutor was present, but not the applicant. The court addressed the public prosecutor's written submission of 17 October 2005 and her oral pleadings requesting that the applicant's appeal be dismissed.
10.  The decision was served on the applicant on 21 November 2005.
11.  On 19 January 2006 the public prosecutor informed the applicant that there were no grounds for lodging a request with the Supreme Court for the protection of legality (“legality review request”).
5.  The applicant is a Czech national born in 1946 who lives in Vysoké Mýto (the Czech Republic).
6.  The applicant was married from 1971 until 1998, when he divorced. On 28 May 1998 the applicant applied for custody of two of his four children, born in 1982 and 1985, maintaining that since August 1997 he and his wife had not lived together and that he cared for the two minor children himself.
In a judgment of 16 July 1998 the Ústí nad Orlicí District Court awarded the applicant custody of the two children.
7.  On 14 November 2003 the Czech Social Security Administration (Česká správa sociálního zabezpečení) dismissed an application by the applicant for a retirement pension as he had not attained the pensionable age required by section 32 of the Pension Insurance Act, which was, in his case, sixty-one years and ten months.
8.  The applicant challenged the administrative decision before the Hradec Králové Regional Court (Krajský soud), arguing that given the fact that he had cared for two children, he was entitled to retire at the age of fifty-seven and had therefore reached the pensionable age.
9.  On 1 December 2004 the Regional Court stayed the proceedings in the applicant's case pending the outcome of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud), which was called upon to review the constitutionality of section 32 of the Pension Insurance Act in another case (no. Pl. ÚS 53/2004) brought before it by the Supreme Administrative Court (Nejvyšší správní soud). The Hradec Králové Regional Court joined the proceedings in that case as an intervening party.
10.  In judgment no. Pl. ÚS 53/2004 of 16 October 2007 the Constitutional Court dismissed the Supreme Administrative Court's petition to repeal section 32 of the Pension Insurance Act, finding that it was not discriminatory and was therefore compatible with Article 1 and Article 3 § 1, in conjunction with Article 30 § 1, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.
11.  On 12 December 2007 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant's action, referring to the Constitutional Court's judgment no. Pl. ÚS 53/2004.
12.  By a judgment of 13 June 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed a cassation appeal by the applicant, relying on the aforesaid judgment of the Constitutional Court.
13.  Subsequently, the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal in which he alleged, inter alia, a violation of Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
14.  On 30 October 2008 the Constitutional Court rejected the constitutional appeal as manifestly ill-founded, emphasising, in particular, the discretion afforded to the legislature to implement preferential treatment, the objective and reasonable aim pursued by this preferential treatment of women and the relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim pursued.
4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Plovdiv.
5.  On 4 October 1990 the applicant and his alleged accomplice D.E. were charged with attempt to theft of two boxes of ham. On the same day the investigator questioned them and interviewed one witness. Two more witnesses were interviewed on 22 May 1992.
6.  On 6 July 1992 the preliminary investigation was concluded and the file was sent to the prosecutor. On 14 August 1992 the proceedings were stayed because the investigating authorities could not find and question D.E.
7.  From 14 August 1992 until December 1999 the case remained dormant.
8.  In December 1999 the investigation authorities started working on the case. On 7 November 2001 the investigator ordered a fresh expert report to assess the value of the stolen goods. On 6 February and 4 June 2002 the applicant was charged again with the same offence. In the meantime the investigator questioned the applicant and interviewed witnesses.
9.  On 23 August 2002 the investigation was concluded. On 22 November 2002 an indictment was filed with the Plovdiv District Court. Between November 2002 and February 2006 the court held six hearings. One of them was adjourned on the ground of the absence of a member of the panel and three of them on the ground of the absence of witnesses. Two hearings were adjourned because either the applicant or his lawyer did not appear.
10.  Upon the prosecutor’s request, on 21 December 2005 the court discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant on the ground that the statute of limitations had expired.
11.  On 8 June 1992 the applicant was questioned by the police in relation to an attempted aggravated theft of various domestic equipment items perpetrated the previous day. He confessed to the offence. The investigating authorities heard witnesses and seized some of the stolen items.
12.  On 17 July 1992 criminal proceedings were opened against the applicant and his alleged accomplice A.M.
13.  From 17 July 1992 until 7 February 2002 the case remained dormant.
14.  On 7 February 2002 the investigation authorities questioned a witness. Between February and April 2002 the investigating authorities questioned several witnesses and ordered an expert report to assess the value of the stolen domestic equipment. On 2 April 2002 the applicant was charged and questioned. The investigation was concluded on 28 May 2003.
15.  On 8 July 2003 an indictment was filed with the Plovdiv District Court. The first hearing, listed for 2 March 2004, was adjourned because of the applicant’s absence. Following a court’s decision ordering the applicant’s detention, on 17 March 2004 the applicant was remanded in custody.
16.  The court held another hearing on 13 October 2004. On 11 January 2005 the court approved a plea bargain agreement between the applicant and the prosecuting authorities where the applicant confessed to the offence and was sentenced to three months of imprisonment.
5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Slovenj Gradec, Slovenia.
6.  In June 1992 criminal charges were brought against five people (“the defendants”) on suspicion of having caused grievous bodily harm to the applicant. On 16 September 1992 an investigating judge of the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) opened an investigation against the defendants. According to statements taken on 25 September 1992 as part of the pre-trial proceedings, the applicant sought damages for loss of income and injuries sustained. He stated that he would subsequently specify his claim.
7.  During the proceedings, the trial court fixed about forty hearings. Most of them were postponed because it could not secure the attendance of the defendants, their representative or witnesses. No adjournment of any of the hearings was ordered on the applicant’s request. The trial court also obtained several expert opinions during the proceedings.
8.  On 4 July 2003 the trial court found three of the defendants guilty of grievous bodily harm and sentenced them to a suspended prison term. It further advised the applicant to pursue a compensation claim by means of a separate civil action. In this connection it observed that the applicant had hitherto sought compensation only for non-pecuniary damage.
9.  On 11 December 2003 the public prosecutor appealed against the above-mentioned decision. At a public hearing held on 27 January 2005, the Skopje Court of Appeal overturned the decision in respect of the sentence and confirmed the remainder. The three defendants were sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. According to the Government, on 10 November 2005 the Supreme Court confirmed this decision by dismissing the defendants’ appeal on points of law (барање за вонредно преиспитување на правосилна пресуда).
10.  On 6 December 2005 the applicant brought a civil action against the defendants and their employer, claiming compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss he had sustained as a result of his injuries.
11.  On 26 June 2008 the trial court ruled partly in favour of the applicant and ordered the defendants and their employer jointly to pay him 1,200,000 Macedonian denars (equivalent to 19,500 euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. On 4 September 2008 the defendants appealed. The case is pending before the Skopje Court of Appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 20 December 1994 the applicant's mother died in hospital. In April 2000 the applicant brought an action in compensation against the hospital, the head of the hospital, his mother's doctor and finally a nurse, requesting the court to establish a violation of his privacy rights in relation to his mother's treatment in hospital and to order the respondents to surrender all medical documentation related to her treatment.
6.  In its interlocutory judgment of 26 February 2002 the Pest Central District Court dismissed the applicant's claim for non-pecuniary damages. This judgment was quashed by the Budapest Regional Court on 21 November 2002.
7.  In the course of the resumed proceedings, one of the respondents died on 22 December 2002. The proceedings were thus discontinued in this respect pending the establishment of the heirs.
8.  On 19 June 2003 the District Court partly found for the applicant. This judgment was reversed by the Budapest Regional Court, which dismissed his action on 13 January 2004, finding inter alia that the applicant was not able to prove that a particular image of computer tomography, deemed to be of crucial importance, was in the possession of the respondent hospital – if it existed at all.
9.  The proceedings continued thereafter solely in respect of the doctor who had once been in charge of the applicant's mother. Since this doctor had meanwhile died (see paragraph 7 above), her legal successors entered the case on 3 January 2005. The Pest Central District Court dismissed the applicant's action in this respect on 4 November 2005, which was finally upheld by the review bench of the Supreme Court on 21 February 2007. The courts found inter alia that the late doctor or her successors held no personal liability in the circumstances and that, in any event, the respondent hospital (against which the applicant's action had already been dismissed, see paragraph 8 above) could not have possibly been ordered to release the image in question since it had been made and preserved in another institution. The judgment was served on the applicant on 5 April 2007.
4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 8 November 1994 a private individual brought an action against the applicant before the Budapest II/III District Court concerning the performance of an agreement on the modification of their respective shares held in a commonly owned real property.
6.  After several hearings, on 23 January 1996 the court delivered a partial judgment in which it dismissed the action in its part seeking the annulment of the agreement. On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the first instance court on 13 November 1996.
7.  In the resumed proceedings, the District Court delivered a partial judgment on 23 April 1997 in which it again dismissed the plaintiff's action. This decision was upheld by the Budapest Regional Court on 24 June 1998.
8.  On 21 February 2003 the District Court delivered a judgment which was partially quashed on 5 February 2004 by the Budapest Regional Court in its part concerning the termination of the co-ownership.
9.  On 17 March 2004 the proceedings were suspended by the Budapest Regional Court, pending the registration of a relevant note on the title deed.
10.  On 1 April 2009 the change of ownership ratios was registered on the title deed. The proceedings concerning the termination of the co-ownership are pending before the first instance court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Érd.
5.  On 27 November 1998 the applicant brought an action against a private company seeking compensation for injuries he had suffered in an accident on the premises of a hotel operated by the respondent. The dispute essentially concerned the amount of compensation payable.
6.  In its interlocutory judgment delivered on 7 July 1999, the Budaörs District Court established the respondent's full liability for the accident. The review bench of the Supreme Court finally upheld this decision on 30 April 2002.
7.  After obtaining the opinion of a medical expert, the District Court awarded the applicant compensation in the amount of 102,632 Hungarian forints (370 euros (EUR)) on 5 November 2003. Being dissatisfied with the amount awarded, the applicant appealed. Following a remittal, the Pest County Regional Court, acting as a second-instance court, significantly raised the amount of compensation on 26 April 2005.
8.  On 30 January 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's petition for review in a reasoned decision. Examining the merits of the case in detail, it held that the second-instance judgment had not been unlawful to an extent that had a bearing on the merits of the case. This decision was served on 3 March 2006.